MikeJames wrote:I will point out that BAe went all in on the AMV 35 for Land 400, which lost to the vastly superior Boxer.

BAe is great at the media campaigns, less so at the run to the finish line, particularly when pushing an inferior product, which the AMV 35 was.

I will still put my money on Navantia.

Mike

Mike - agree Navantia would a sensible choice for a wide range of reasons, save for the fact that platform was not purpose-built for ASW. To me, if it comes down to a design requires a flexible purpose-built ASW platform to which the T26 is (on paper), then the T26 is not at a disadvantage to the in-service AWD hull that hasn't been.

However, I think there is also a combination of behind the scenes stuff, that seems typical of procurement Australian defence decisions, that may see the T26 get there.

I think the BAE bid (and as you said they go all out), this time may be different - with a massive and somewhat greater desperation drive driven by the UK govt to grab greater / closer defence ties outside of Europe post Brexit. If SEA5000 came out in favour of the T26, notwithstanding the much needs commercial win for BAE, politically in the UK that decision would be congruent with the pro-Brexit pre-Brexit story that desperately needs examples of post-Brexit validation.

But - it's certainly entertaining.

Cheers

John

He who dies with the most toys, just dies...you can't take it with you.

Honestly, the Government doesn't give a rats for closer defence ties to the UK, not compared to jobs in South Australia.

After all the only time we see a RN warship out here is every five or seven years, in this case it's because they were trying to support the Future Frigate bid by BAe.

It wasn't missed in Canberra that the ship they sent is a 22 year old one that's due to be replaced by the Type 26 / Type 31, not the Type 45, the latest example of UK surface warships, because that design is so unreliable that it is constantly breaking down and not suitable for a round the world trip.

Navantia have the runs on the board, the same basic hull is in production in South Australia, while the Type 26 is still being built, the first isn't in service yet, the British haven't transferrred a building project or done a tech transfer in decades and the ship is vastly too expensive, even for the Royal Navy.

I will also point out that the Future Frigate would be the fourth Navantia design in service with the RAN, along with the AWDs, amphibs and the new AORs, so the Navy's comfortable with working with Navantia.

The RAN wants a vessel that can be built here without too many issues and that will enter service without too many screw ups.

They went through that with the AWD, they do not want to have to reinvent the wheel with either the FREMM or the T26.

Mike

Last edited by MikeJames on 23 Mar 2018 23:56, edited 1 time in total.

Mike - you miss understood. I was commenting on the UK post Brexit seeking ties not us.

In any case, congruent with what I was saying re the UK's / BAE's all-out push (aka sucking up)- I didn't realise that the UK was posturing about buying CEFAR - probably brinksmanship and something that won't happen without the T26. But nonetheless interesting. https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/marit ... sion-looms

The entertainment continues!

Cheers

J

He who dies with the most toys, just dies...you can't take it with you.

From Today's Australian - re the T26 -BAE's pitch is essentially:-the FREMM is old -really old-the AWD hull represents reverse engineering to meet ASW requirements and therefore represents greater risk than a design that is designed for ASW-the T26 will be state of the art

BAE Australia chief executive Gabby Costigan — a former Australian Army colonel and ex-­Linfox Asia chief — said the company’s Type 26 Global Combat Ship would be “significantly more advanced than whoever it is we are trying to defeat”.

“From the customer’s perspective, they want the best capability. And I think that the Global Combat Ship, based on the Type 26, gives them that,” the Duntroon graduate said.

“The Italians have an old frigate, and the Spanish don’t have an Australian Anti-Submarine Warfare frigate. They are using a different hull and they are going to try ­to reverse-engineer that ASW ­capability.”

The biggest negative for BAE is the Type 26 exists only as a digital design file; none is in the water.

The company says its bid has been significantly “de-risked” by Britain, which is five years ahead in its program to build eight Type 26 vessels."

The Royal Navy will have three of the ships under way, and one in sea trials, by the time steel is cut for the first Australian ship.

BAE is competing against ­Italian company Fincantieri and Spanish ship builder Navantia to build nine anti-submarine frigates that will form the backbone of Australia’s ability to deal with threats in Asia-Pacific for the next 30 to 40 years.

Fincantieri’s FREMM is the only one of the proposed vessels in the water, and has been seen in ­recent months as the frontrunner to win the contract.

Navantia’s F-5000, which is based on the company’s Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyer, was seen as the early leader, given it is already building AWDs in Adelaide, where the Future Frigates will also be built.

Ms Costigan and bid leader Nigel Stewart talked up their ship’s potential as a platform for futuristic directed-energy ­weapons that are expected to be deployed on ships in coming ­decades.

“They will come, but those weapons need a huge amount of power. The Type 26 has got the space in it, it’s got the power, for things like that,’’ Mr Stewart said.

Ms Costigan said BAE’s British roots also made the company the only bidder with membership to the exclusive “Five Eyes” intelligence club that includes the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

“That is something the others can’t offer. And when you do consider then threats of the future, that Five Eyes relationship for our region will be critical,” she said.

Ms Costigan said the FREMM would face “obsolescence issues” if Fincantieri won the bid — the first of that class was commissioned by the French in 2012, while the first Future Frigate won’t enter service until the late 2020s.

BAE also suggests the Navantia offering, as a “derivative of ­another ship”, won’t deliver the stealthiness required from a submarine hunter.

“Our ship is designed for anti-submarine warfare; it’s acoustically quiet,” Mr Stewart said. “The only way you’ll get a truly acoustically quiet ship is you design it in from the start.”

Ms Costigan said BAE, which had operated in Australia for 65 years and had 3500 local employees, had put a lot of work into getting its supply chain right for the project, and would “substantially” exceeded the required 50 per cent local participation.

The government is due to ­announce the winning bidder of its SEA 5000 Future Frigate contract by the middle of the year.

Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne has declared that the government’s top priority for the Future Frigate project is “that the navy gets the capability it needs to defend the nation and to maintain our national security and national interests in the region”.

It also wants to ensure that by the end of the project Australia has developed a sustainable domestic ship-building industry.

He who dies with the most toys, just dies...you can't take it with you.

We were members of the Five Eyes when we selected German frigates (Anzacs) and OPVs, Swedish (Collins) and French (Barracuda Shortfin) subs and Spanish amphibious ships, destroyers and replenishment ships, We will still be Five Eyes members no matter which of the three nation's ships we build.

Basically it's pretty shameless pleading for the job.

It should be treated with the same disdain as any other special interest pleading.

MIke

Last edited by MikeJames on 03 May 2018 23:28, edited 1 time in total.

If you are planning a 35 year life span for a ship, which is our intention, then they will all face obsolesce issues in that time frame, no matter which design you have. The Fremm has plenty of space for upgrades and whilst the others only exist on paper, you would assume they would as well.

BAE’s last “significantly more advanced” ship was the Type 45 and it has had some serious engineering issues, whereas the Fremm’s electric motors and insulated generator systems worked straight off the bat in cold and warm water and the frigate apparently tracked a Chinese sub off Africa whilst in transit (do not know anymore detail than this).

I wonder if US connections will play a part in this as we are really go down the Aegis path. BAE and Fincantieri are both in the US. The Fremm is one of three under consideration for the future frigate in the US (partnership with Lockheed) and BAE bid the Type 26 for this, but didn’t make the cut.

One reason that the RAN is wedded to US systems is because the US invests so much in upgrading and improving weapon systems over a long life span.

The SM-1 Standard missile was a contemporary of the RN SEa Slug / Sea Dart. It's derivative successors the SM-3 / 6 are still in production and still uses much the same missile launchers and other handling equipment while delivering massively upgraded capability, right up to ABM capability, something Europe still hasn't got a handle on.

In the same time frame the RN has retired, started, abandoned and adopted multiple systems, none of which have had anything like the capability, upgrade path or international sales.

The same can be said for Fanco-Italian weapons systems. Basically none of them can afford to spend the money the US does on ongoing upgrade paths for weapons and sensors.

That's why the RAN prefers US weapons and sensors, even if fitted to european platforms like Collins and Anzac.

It appears that the Brits are well and truly heading towards US gear - the Mk41 launcher is a big leap for them. They get it.

Will the T45 problems be held against them? - possibly - but doing so would be short-sighted. Past F/ups don't always mean the same problems in the future. The T45 has been a very expensive lesson for the UK Govt and BAE in not what to do.

As I stated previously Mike, as I bounce back and forth to the UK for study, what I observe on the ground in the UK is there has been a massive shift pre-and post Brexit amongst the UK parliament and politicians and amongst people on the street to look more closely to ties for trade and security outside of Europe. It's hyperbole of course from BAE to mention the 5 eyes - but placed in the context of what is occurring in the UK, its bluster that is expected to fit with political narratives back home. As we know - politics do play a role in procurement, so BAE are throwing it in the ring.

To me T26 biggest risk may well be its greatest advantage - its built first and foremost for ASW.

Apparently decision will now be June this yr.

Cheers J

He who dies with the most toys, just dies...you can't take it with you.

The use of the Mk41 launcher on the Type 26 seems to have been a one off.

UK industry had fought tooth and nail to stop the Type 45 using the Mk41 and succeeded, but it seems the decision to go with the international standard VLS launcher on the Type 26 caught UK industry by surprise.

They weren't able to stop it, but the Type 31 supplement for the Type 26 is committed to a Sylver launcher system rather than Mk 41.

by the way Mike. RN building 8 Type 26's. All will be ASWs - with the 5 cancelled that were to be GPF now being looked after by the cheaper type 31 design. So at least the Australian article got the numbers right.

I wouldn’t count any of them out yet, I favor the Fremm design because it exists and is a good proven design. The others no matter what is said by their respective marketing teams are unproven paper designs at the end of the day. But yes far more than this will be taken into account.

The closer the decision is announced to the election, the greater the political weight will be towards what will give the incumbent government the most bang for its buck, and that may or may not align with what the navy considers “the best ship”.

Personally, I think Navantia won the 3 tenders so far (LHD, AWD and tanker), not because they had the best ship (although they are good), but because politically Spain’s naval vision (i.e. ship design size, strategic partners (read US here) and direction of regional bluewater fleet) is the closest to our own of the Europeans, therefore Navantia's designs have been found to be suitable to our requirements so far. Throw in local job creation, knowledge transfer after a bumpy start is bedded down now, as is a growing local supply chain and none of this is on the nose with the navy or either side of government, so I think they have an advantage.

I agree about the MK41 for the Type 26, it’s a good choice, but from a big picture view, considering the amount of money they have poured into competing weapon systems so far, continue to do so and have committed to into the future, it’s an odd choice long-term. I do wonder where it really came from.

and now in the last days of desperation and manoeuvring the Australian is running a story, along the lines of what I mentioned early. -Post Brexit, the Type 26 if selected would represent a big political win for the UK govt, who need as many post Brexit "good news" stories about ties outside of the EU as they can get.

Britain’s exit from the EU would draw it closer to Australia in ­defence and security co-operation, according to British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson.

“Europe has been sometimes too much focused on,” Mr Williamson said. “There’s a whole big world out there.

“We trade more with the rest of the world than we do with Europe. What we need to be doing is working out how we maximise those opportunities to play a bigger role with our partners, both old and new.”

In particular he believed Brexit would “shift the way we do ­defence industry collaboration”.

Mr Williamson outlined a plan to The Australian for Britain and Australia to work much more intimately on jointly developing ­defence technology for their own use and for joint export.

He was speaking in support of the bid by British company BAE to win the $35 billion contract to build Australia’s nine new anti-submarine warfare frigates.

“If you look at the Type 26 (BAE frigate), this will be the finest anti-submarine frigate in the world, but also pack one of the most powerful punches on the sea to be able to do other tasks,’’ Mr Williamson said.

Two other companies, Spain’s Navantia and Italy’s Fincantieri, are on the shortlist to supply the frigates for Australia. The decision is expected later this month or next.

Asked whether the Type 26 was disadvantaged by not yet being a finished ship, Mr Williamson said: “You could say rather cynically that the people who are going to take all the grief, if there is grief, are the Royal Navy. We’re building the ships as we speak. If Australia goes down this route, by that time this will be a very developed design and a very developed production.”

He believed Britain and Australia could develop a much closer industrial collaboration following their strategic and political closeness.

“Australia is a major power and has a significant footprint. We have a lot of experience working together, both in conflicts in the distant past and the near past,’’ Mr Williamson said.

“Australia is one of the few countries that you’d feel very comfortable with in commanding and leading British forces.

“Both Australia and the UK have played a really important role in Syria. We’ve flown over 1600 strikes. Australia with its Hornets has been absolutely pivotal in degrading Daesh.

“We shouldn’t think that this is a job that’s done, though, there are still estimated to be up to 10,000 Daesh fighters in Syria. They are a threat to the UK and our allies.”

In a post-Brexit environment, Mr Williamson believed Britain would be more energetic and proactive in seeking defence industry collaborations.

“Where it can work best is with nations like Australia, because you have those deep links ­between the two countries,’’ he said. “It’s all very well to look at where we can sell things to Australia and where Australia can sell things to us, but the real prize is how we develop the ideas, develop the technology that Australia and Britain can sell to the world.

“It’s very easy to sell the idea of this collaboration to Australian and British scientists. It’s never been a big chore to convince British scientists to go and spend some time in Australia.”

Mr Williamson emphasised the intimacy of the “Five Eyes” intelligence relationships between the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand as providing a context of trust and technological interoperability.

He said Brexit Britain planned to make a bigger commitment to Asian security and he cited the voyages through the region of three British warships, HMS ­Sutherland, HMS Albion and HMS Argyle.

“For us, the (Indo-Pacific) ­region is very important. It is important that we signal our interest and our solidarity with our friends and allies. And it’s very important that we have the military resources within the region,’’ he said.

He cited the Five Power ­Defence Arrangements that involve Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia in the defence of peninsular Malaysia as an example of British commitment and involvement in Asia.

Mr Williamson has been­ ­reported as Prime Minister Theresa May’s favoured successor, ­although he has lined up with the Brexiteers in cabinet to oppose her preferred option of pursuing a customs “partnership” with the EU.

He who dies with the most toys, just dies...you can't take it with you.

"The British and Italian bids to build the nation’s new Future Frigates have been rated by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute as the most capable anti-submarine warfare ships on offer in the $35 billion SEA 5000 tender.

However, the third contender, Spain’s Navantia, has been identified as the least risky option, and likely the cheapest to build.

With a decision on the Future Frigate contract due within weeks, the institute has rated the three contenders for the contract on performance, project risk, ­industrial strategy and cost.

The institute’s latest paper said the Type 26 Global Combat Ship offered by Britain’s BAE Systems was “the most modern design”, but also the least proven ­option, with no ships yet completed.

The Type 26’s newness was a “two-edged sword”, the report said, with its performance based on projections “which should necessarily be regarded with some scepticism”. The FREMM, from Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri, was a “relatively new but proven ­design”, and well suited to an ASW-specific role.

“Relative to the Type 26, the FREMM offers the advantage of already being in service, and thus being more readily evaluated. For example, its acoustic signature can be measured, rather than being a projected figure,” the paper said.

It said Fincantieri, as a major builder of military and commercial ships, offered “probably the greatest opportunities for Australian industry” through access to its global supply chain.

Navantia had the benefit of its experience building the navy’s three Hobart-class air warfare ­destroyers, which its F-5000 ­future frigate is based on, and its capable Adelaide-based shipbuilding workforce.

“The Navantia vessel is almost certainly the least risky of the three contenders from a project risk perspective, in the sense of Navantia being able to start work relatively quickly,” the paper said.

The nine ship SEA 5000 contract was one of the biggest open to Western naval shipbuilders, and would be a defining one for Australia’s security and its shipbuilding industry, the paper said.

It rated the Type 26 as the “most risky” option, and “possibly the most expensive”.

The Spanish ship was likely to be the least ­expensive to build, unless significant design changes were mandated to deliver high-perform­ance ASW capabilities. Fincantieri’s lack of familiarity with the Australian shipbuilding environment was a project risk for the Italians, the institute said.

It said the FREMM’s hangar capacity, which allows for two Seahawk ASW helicopters, was one of the major attractions of the Italian bid.

The Type 26’s large mission bay, which could house and ­deploy drones, surface craft, unmanned submarines, or a second Seahawk helicopter, was unique among the contenders, ASPI said, providing “flexibility for mission loads to change through life”. Unlike its rivals, the F-5000 cannot switch to run on electric motors, making it louder when hunting a submarine. The report said the F-5000 benefited from having more missile cells incorporated into its baseline design than the FREMM or the Type 26, giving it strong air- defence capabilities.

“The Hobart-class pedigree means it is a multipurpose combatant with ASW capabilities, rather than a design optimised from the start for ASW as its primary mission,” the paper said.

It noted the SEA 5000 tender called for a ship “optimised” for anti-submarine warfare. But it said the preferred vessel was likely to be chosen for its ability to perform a broad range of roles, given the frigates make up 75 per cent of the Navy’s surface fleet.

“As a result, we think the ­future frigates will be more accurately characterised as general purpose frigates with advanced ASW capabilities,” the paper said.

Whichever bidder won the contract, the success of the project and its benefits for the shipbuilding industry would hinge on how well the Australian government used its $35b leverage.

“Done well, with effective intellectual property rights agreed upfront, Australian firms can become export partners for the winning contractors’ own production and international sales,” the report said. Cabinet’s national security committee is expected to meet within the next four weeks to ­determine which of the contenders will win the contract."

He who dies with the most toys, just dies...you can't take it with you.

One thing that many people seem to forget is that the specs for SEA 5000 are not for an ASW specific ship. It's not like we are building a modern version of the RN's original Type 22 Frigate, so specialised for ASW that it lacks much beyond self defence capabilty.

The design will carry the Aegis combat system paired with the latest iteration of SeaFAR phased array radars, the ones with the longest range and capability yet fielded, that means AAW capability is considered at least as important as ASW.

In addition the Mk41 launcher will be strike length, not self-defence length (VLS SEa Sparrow as per the Anzacs) or tactical length (Harpoon and SM-6 capable). Strike length is designed to accomodate both Tomahawk and SM-3 anti ballistic missile capable interceptors).

The RAN wants general purpose frigates with a mix of capabilities, yes ASW is important, but only a few navies have effective subs in the region, everyone has aircraft and missiles. Utilising the cooperative engagement capabilities the US Navy has developed and which were recently proven in trials with Hobart and Brisbane, the frigates will be able to effectively contribute to the AAW and ASuW capabilities of a task force.

Getting ahead of the curve - and the public announcement, Fincantieri is backing itself to win by now advertising for shipbuilders to work on the FREMM in SA! They do say in the ad (posted May 4, 2018) that they are one of three shipbuilders possibly going to get the nod - yet pretty confident to have jobs ads going out to assemble the talent pool ahead of the announcement.

"We’re confident our offering of the FREMM is the ideal option for Australia and the Royal Australian Navy. If Fincantieri Australia’s design and solution is selected, then we expect to create many engineering positions across various disciplines to work for us on the program. As an engineer working on the program you will have the opportunity to be a part of the latest shipbuilding technology and innovation, as well as developing cutting edge anti-submarine and naval platform systems technology."

I understand that it was considered by the National Security sub-committee last week.

It is suggested they told the proponents to go back and get more detail on their Australian Industry Participation. Basically which companies in which electorates will get what work. Once that is done they will down select to two designs and consider the final design.

None of my contacts in Canberra have been able to confirm this though, it's being VERY tightly held in Russell.

If I had to make a call, I would say it is between the Type 26 (BAE has done a lot of work on trying to sell their project on the basis of closer economic ties with the UK, I think its BS but still...) and the Navantia design (based on our long term relationship with the designer and the fact that we have ironed out most of the issues working with them. A new shipyard means starting out all over again).

The FREMM is probably a dark horse, the Italian's haven't ever sold anything in this part of the world and are considered also-rans in the US FFX program.

We will know soon enough.

Mike

Last edited by MikeJames on 15 Jun 2018 12:39, edited 1 time in total.

pity 90% of the trained workforce is gone now.....most who I have bumped into have said they won't be going back either. We will see same situation as the AWD project with delays in construction until the workforce gains experience in building the ships. The govt has waited far too long, We had Pyne here in Adelaide the other week bragging about how things were going...total waste of oxygen

Whilst I still think it is Navantia's to loose considering 3 successful bids (Tanker LHD and AWD), when you think of appealing to the government to help create a sustainable industry and jobs, plus they offer a good frigate, I think this would be a draw card.

As part of Fincantieri Australia’s local operations start-up, the company today announced the first steel has been cut in South Australia for three cruise blocks. The cruise ship block contracts were awarded to MG Engineering and Ottoway Engineering in March. The Australian steel will be integrated into the cruise ship superstructure for one of Fincantieri’s international projects.

Whilst materially it is not big, Fincantieri is giving a taste of what else could come with the frigate. Navantia is not as big, and if BAE could do this, then why didn't they years ago when they have had ample opportunity to do so.

Honestly the Fincantieri thing is a stunt, they're prepared to lose some money (a few tens of millons) on the cruise ship modules to get their hands on a $35 billion warship contract. If they don't get it you can bet we'll never see any further work from Fincantieri ever again.

A little bird whispered in my ear that a third AOR to join Supply and Stalwart may be on the cards given the need for a deployable capability. Mind you another little bird suggested that may be a consolation prize to Navantia should they not get the Future Frigate deal.

One thing to remember, the US is watching our contest, as all three contenders in our Future Frigate are also in the competition to deliver at least 20 new frigates to the US Navy under the FFX program.